← All Phrases

“Section 10(35)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(35)170 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(35) is CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. (326 ITR 1), cited in 543 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(35)

CIT v. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd.
326 ITR 1 · 2010 · Supreme Court
543
citing judgments

For attracting Section 14A disallowance, there must be a proximate cause relating the expenditure to actual tax-exempt income, and such disallowance is not automatic but requires positive material. Additionally, Section 94(7) on dividend stripping only ignores losses to the extent of dividend received for assessment years post-April 1, 2002, allowing the remaining loss.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. Microlabs Ltd.
383 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
175
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses interest-free funds exceeding investments in tax-free securities, it is presumed that investments are made from these own funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii). Additionally, weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB) is computed on the gross expenditure incurred, not net expenditure after reducing income earned.

DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse
259 ITR 280 · 2003 · Supreme Court
86
citing judgments

Violation of investment mandates under Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a charitable trust results in the complete denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.

CIT v. Ramkrishna Deo
35 ITR 312 · 1959 · Supreme Court
84
citing judgments

The burden of proving that a particular income is exempt from taxation, or is not taxable, lies on the assessee. To claim an exemption or a deduction, the assessee must provide proper materials to establish eligibility.

ACIT v. ICICI Securities Primary Dealership Ltd.
348 ITR 299 · 2012 · Supreme Court
76
citing judgments

Reopening assessment based on a mere re-look of accounts already furnished and assessed under section 143(3) is not permissible if there was no failure on the part of the assessee to make a true and full disclosure. The assessment cannot be reopened on the ground that income has escaped assessment merely by re-examining previously filed accounts.

Madras Industrial Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT
91 Taxmann 340 · 1997 · Supreme Court
73
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that discount on the issue of debentures is a deductible expenditure that can be spread proportionately over the period for which the debentures remain outstanding, rather than being claimed entirely in the year of issue. This treatment acknowledges the enduring benefit derived from the funds raised through debentures.

Everest Kanto Cylinders Ltd. v. DCIT
34 Taxmann.com 19 · 2013 · ITAT
64
citing judgments

A transfer pricing adjustment for corporate guarantees provided by an Indian entity to its Associated Enterprises (AEs) where no fees are charged can be estimated at approximately 0.20%. The arm's length principle applies to such intra-group corporate guarantee transactions.

Judgments citing Section 10(35)

Lintas Employees Health Assistance Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4364/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Lintas Employees Health Income-Tax Officer, Assistance Trust Ward – 25(2)(1), 13Th Floor, Express Towers Mumbai Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai – 400021 (Pan: Aaatl0325M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Prakash Jotwani & Ms Priya Gada, Advocates Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Hyderabad Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- 25/1074797264(1), Dated 21.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By The Central Processing Centre Of The Department, Bengaluru (Cpc) U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 12.05.2020 For Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: Ground No. 1: Erred In Not Condoning Delay In Filing The Appeal The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering The Merits Of The Case & Erred In Not Condoning The Delay Of 964 Days In Filing The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani and Ms Priya Gada, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 10(15)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH